R v Singh - [2016] NZHC 1666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2015-019-006253 [2016] NZHC 1666

THE QUEEN

v

MANJIT SINGH

Hearing: 21 July 2016

Appearances:

R Douch for the Crown
RAA Weir for the Defendant

Sentencing:

21 July 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF WOOLFORD J

Solicitors/Counsel:

Almao Douch (Crown Solicitor), Hamilton
Public Defence Service, Hamilton

R v SINGH [2016] NZHC 1666 [21 July 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Singh, you are here today for sentence on one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.1 The maximum penalty for this offending is
14 years imprisonment.2 The victim of your offending was your former wife, whose

presence together with your children, I would like to acknowledge here in the Court today.

[2] It is clear, Mr Singh, that you have very serious mental health issues. In 2010 you were acquitted by reason of insanity on charges of causing grievous bodily harm, breaching a protection order and threatening to kill the very same victim. This resulted in you being detained as a special patient pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal
Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.3 You have since been placed

under the care of the Auckland Regional Forensic Psychiatric Services. At the time of the present offending you had been granted overnight leave allowing you to spend time between the community and the Mason Clinic as part of efforts for your rehabilitation and re-integration.

[3] Given your mental health issues, a sentence combining imprisonment with committal as a special patient is sought on your behalf. In addition to determining the appropriate term of imprisonment for you today, I am also therefore required to assess whether to make an order for your detention in hospital under s 34 of the CPMIP. I will begin with the conventional sentencing exercise before going on to consider whether such an order is appropriate in your case.

Background

[4] The background to your offending is recorded in an agreed summary of facts. You and the victim married in 1998. You had two children together, a daughter and a son, both of whom are now teenagers. Your marriage broke down and you separated in 2003. You were divorced in 2005. The victim obtained a final protection order
against you in September 2007.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 188(1).
2      Section 188(1).
3      (“CPMIP”).

[5] On 4 November 2015 you travelled from Auckland to Hamilton to the house where the victim and your children were residing. As I have said, you were on leave from the Mason Clinic at the time. There had previously been some communication between you and the victim via text messages in which she had encouraged you to maintain contact with your children. However, you had given no warning that you would come to the house that day.

[6] When you arrived the victim observed that you were carrying a pistol in the back of your trousers. She queried this and you told her that “gangs were coming for you” and the pistol was for…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Singh [2016] NZHC 1666
Case: [2016] NZHC 1666
Decision Date: 21 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was R v Singh, where the defendant, Manjit Singh, was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm against his former wife. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account his mental health issues and the nature of the offence. The defendant had a history of mental health problems, including persecutory delusions, and had previously been acquitted by reason of insanity on similar charges. The Crown sought a sentence that combined imprisonment with committal as a special patient under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

The court identified several legal issues to be resolved. The first was to determine the appropriate starting point for sentencing based on the nature of the offence. The court also had to consider the defendant’s personal factors, including his mental health, previous convictions, and remorse. Finally, the court needed to decide whether to make an order for the defendant’s detention as a special patient under section 34 of the Act.

In determining the starting point, the court identified several aggravating factors, including the use of extreme violence, causing serious injury, using a weapon, attacking the head, and the vulnerability of the victim. The court found that the offence fell into the highest band, with a starting point of 10 years imprisonment. After considering the defendant's personal factors, the court applied a discount for his genuine remorse and a lesser discount for his mental disorder, resulting in a sentence of eight years and eight months imprisonment. The court further applied a discount for the defendant's guilty plea, reducing the term to seven years imprisonment, with a minimum of 50% to be served.

Regarding the detention order, the court was satisfied that the defendant met the criteria under section 34(1)(a)(i) of the Act. The psychiatric evidence confirmed that the defendant was mentally disordered and required compulsory treatment or care. The court concluded that an order for detention as a special patient was necessary not only for the defendant's own interests but also for the safety of the public and the victim.

The final orders were that Manjit Singh was sentenced to seven years imprisonment, with a minimum period of three and a half years to be served, and an order was made for his detention in hospital as a special patient under section 34(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003.

Orders